"I don't really think he looks like me," Franzese deadpans about the actor who, for about two seconds, "plays" him in Scorsese's Goodfellas.

The ex-con also punctures a famous scene in the same film that he says he's "been asked about a million times."

Sadly, no: imprisoned Mafiosi were never allowed to cook their own red sauce.

(As fun as Franzese's videos are, fact-checking Mafia movies is somewhat beside the point: Mario Puzo made up a lot of the cosa nostra mythology in The Godfather β and the real Mafia liked these "traditions" so much, they adopted them.)

Anyway, despite these and other fabrications on the director's part, Franzese admires Scorsese's work, and rightly so.

(Even if I didn't think that already, do you think I'd disagree with this guy?)

Then, in 2010, he championed its rehabilitation with a series of highly publicized and popular screenings, coinciding with the movie's 50th anniversary.

Peeping Tom centers on amateur filmmaker Mark Lewis (Austrian actor Carl Boehm, at turns alien and ordinary.) By day, he's a handsome, soft-spoken movie studio focus puller and part-time pin-up photographer. By night, Mark films the reactions of women he murders by way of "the spiked leg of a tripod attached to his 16mm camera, upon which he has also mounted a mirror so that his victims are forced to watch their own contorted faces as they expire."

During the restoration's publicity jaunt, the press and film buffs alike hoovered up Scorsese's tantalizing Peeping Tom backstory β that this widely-condemned and long-forgotten serial killer movie destroyed Powell's otherwise magisterial career. A case of Frankenstein's monster slaughtering his creator, a genius ahead of his time.

Worse (the saga continued), Hitchcock's superficially similar Psycho was released that same year, to big box office returns and enduring critical regard.

This irony-rich elevator pitch taps into so many archetypes (along with the vanities of its audience: a cognoscenti always craving a "new" "misunderstood" artist to "discover") it's no wonder it became received wisdom.

While Peeping Tom was certainly denounced upon release to a degree rarely witnessed before or since β "The only really satisfactory way to dispose of Peeping Tom would be to shovel it up and flush it swiftly down the nearest sewer" is only the most famous of similar reviews β the legend elides the fact that Powell's previous five films had bombed too.

It didn't help that Peeping Tom was a sharp swerve away from the more elevated themes and sophisticated, magical productions, like The Red Shoes, that everyone had come to expect, and demand, from Powell. Imagine if Merchant Ivory came out with a grindhouse slasher film, except that slasher films didn't even exist when they did so.

Because that was the case with Peeping Tom: viewers were unaccustomed to its brazen, Eastmancolor brutality β and possibly insulted by the movie's implication that by watching this (or any) film, we are all voyeurs like Mark, complicit (however unintentionally) in turning other people into objects, and crime into entertainment.

A neurotic introvert, Mark only feels comfortable when viewing the world (especially the world of women) through a glass lens. Behind the shield of his camera, this socially shaky man-boy becomes authoritative, confident enough even to kill.

Powell places us behind the camera too, in POV shots, forcing us to confront our own culpability.

Why do we happily give over our money or time to be voluntarily frightened and titillated by images on screens large and small, all the while gleefully booing the villain whose evil actions we've paid to watch?

Certain tribesmen of pop anthropology fame feared that photography stole their souls. We may mock their superstitions, but manufactured images β of impossibly perfect fashion models, Instagrammed homes and vacations, hardcore sexual acts, violence real and imaginary β can have a corrosive impact on us all, not just weirdos like Mark.

Powell made an occasionally clumsy but laudable attempt to autopsy the very act of seeing itself β the relationship between movie maker and audience, as well as what had been dubbed, back in 1975, "the male gaze."

(The critic who coined that phrase, Laura Mulvey, recorded the commentary track for the film's Criterion edition. That her now-famous feminist film theory had first been introduced into popular consciousness a few years earlier, by a man, is a topic for another day.)

Some will immediately recognize the main character as an "incel." Was that a word we didn't need in 2010 β or 1960? Or just one we didn't know we did?

Mark calls the private snuff film he's piecing together at night "a documentary;" at a time when most Englishmen (and many Americans) didn't even own a TV, he carries around a camera the size of one's head, and often attempts, awkwardly, to conceal it from quizzical stares.

How many people have you seen, today alone, capturing images of themselves and others on their tiny phones, without shame or effort, each convinced that their visions are worthy of preservation? We are all documentarians β and broadcasters and podcasters and publishers β now, or can be, with little financial outlay or other barriers to entry, including the approbation of those around us.

And if our pictures don't come out perfectly, there's always Photoshop or Perfect365.

News of criminals matter-of-factly recording and even uploading their crimes is no longer novel. Last year, "a Japanese man was charged with assault after using Instagram to take his stalking of a woman from the internet onto the streets (...) the man ascertained the woman's location by looking at the 'reflection in her eyes' on her Instagram selfies."

We learn that, as a child, Peeping Tom's Mark was a guinea pig in the name of "science":

His researcher father used him as the subject of experiments in fear, recording the boy's tearful, terrified reactions when, for instance, his father tosses a lizard onto his bed.

These scenes were what really shocked to Peeping Tom's audiences in 1960, more so than the bloodless, just-off-camera murders. Who would subject their child to such cruelty?

Have you managed to get this far into today without reading about a child "drag queen" or one who's "transitioning"? Or of another, whose obsession with the "science" of "climate change" has resulted in both suicidal self-harm and international acclaim? Maybe you caught a "hilarious" viral video of children being "pranked" over pilfered Halloween candy, and reduced to tears?

Or, closer to home, you overheard another parent boast about their plans to put their now-toddler daughters on the Pill at an "appropriate" age?

And finally:

Have you seen, or heard about, a new movie or TV show that "everyone" hates? It's coarse and weird and gross and "not even funny." Whoever made it should be ashamed of themselves. What's the world coming to?

Did you pause to wonder if, in 50 or 60 years, our descendants might point to this creation and sigh, "How could people not 'get' it? Why didn't they see it as a warning?"

That said, in Peeping Tom, the only person who sees through Mark β and then, only through a glass, darkly β is blind.

Mark Steyn Club members can let Kathy know what they think in the comments. If you want to join in on the fun, make sure to sign up for a membership for you or a loved one. To meet many of your fellow club members in person, join Mark along with Conrad Black, Michele Bachmann and several others aboard our upcomingMark Steyn Cruise down the Mediterranean.

Member Login

22 Member Comments

Roy Koczela • Mar 16, 2020 at 10:59

"Incel" has always been a stupid word. Nobody is "involuntarily celibate" who can afford a bus ticket to Vegas.

It's not about sex, it's about self-esteem, as we'd immediately realize if we were talking about women. And we'd know that these people need to be told not to let women's opinion matter so much to them-as, again, we'd immediately know if we were talking about anorexic girls.

Andrew A Roy Koczela • Mar 17, 2020 at 01:15

Roy,

Thank you for the clarification. I'd never heard of the word 'incel' until now, nor suspected that 'involuntary celibacy' had any relation to voyeurism nor caused an affinity for photography.

I doubt that 'incel' is about self-esteem either, specifically not low self-esteem. The 'self esteem' cult has always baffled me because they have it all backward. Someone who thinks he is owed sex has a problem with too much self-esteem, not too little. Young people need to taught that self-esteem kills the soul and is a barrier to success, freedom, and happiness. The self-esteem cult has already ruined the lives of women and ethnic minorities, it's a pity that they are now trying their tricks on men and boys.

Mike Walsh • Mar 16, 2020 at 08:01

Criminals taking style points from the movies is as old as George Raft and Paul Muni. And the Al Pacino Scarface suit used to be featured in certain New York tailors' windows, where it had great sartorial cachet among the gang-bangers. When will Queer Eye for the Wise Guy debut on Netflix?

John Shuba • Mar 15, 2020 at 10:31

I am a huge fan of the Powell/Pressburger partnership particularly "49th Parallel", "Life and Times of Colonel Blimp" and that little-known masterpiece, "I Know Where I'm Going." They were the finest filmmaking team ever and that includes the Coen Brothers.

It took me a long time to run down Powell's "Peeping Tom" which I finally found by chance in the Foreign Film section of a local video store. I agree completely with your analysis. This is a film about neurotic voyeruism and the neurotic voyeur in all of us. I thought Karlheinz Bohm's portrayal was perfect. He is likable but strangely off-kilter when compared to the other characters - And it's not just his accent but the way he carries himself. The omnipresent camera he lugs around label's him as "different." (BTW - Bohm's father was the great German conductor, Karl Bohm.) The camera marks him as a voyerur but one who is hiding in plain sight, one of us.

I can see why the film was vaporized by the critics of the time. Unlike "Psycho", which rests on the overtly bizarre visual platform of the Bates Motel and the gothic Bates home, "Peeping Tom" takes place in a rather prosaic London in soothing color. To start, Powell gently introduces the newsagent scene that begins with lovable Miles Malleson negotiating with the proprietor for dirty pictures and moves to Mark expertly photographing the two nearly naked tarts, one with the cruel scar on her face. It reminds us of the moral squalor that can underlie the dull and the ordinary. Then there is Mark's house, broken up into pleasant flats but crowned by his spartan personal attic space where he runs and reruns films of the tortures inflicted on him by his father and his (Mark's) murders. Then there is the scene where Mark is breezily and enjoyably answering police questions (Nigel Davenport and Jack Watson) when one of the coppers picks up his camera and starts fiddling with it. Bohm's demeanor changes to one of anxiety and apprehension like a child being threatened with separation from a favorite possession.

I believe that Hitch got away with "Psycho" because he was already the "master of suspense." Then there was the brilliant way the film was promoted prepared audiences and critics for something "unusual." Powell (and Pressburger) films, though imaginative and often unconventional, were "always in good taste" and never sensationalistic. But "Peeping Tom" was not simply unconventional - It was also subversive in a way "The Red Shoes" was not.

Anyway, sorry to gas on, but I find "Peeping Tom" compelling even today. Nearly all horror films are childish but Powell was making a horror film for grown-ups that has a lot more truth in it than we would like to admit.

Kathy Shaidle John Shuba • Mar 15, 2020 at 12:00

Not "gassing on" at all, John. Your comments are so thoughtful!

You are onto something about the Bates Motel milieu. The main action all takes place within that fictional perimeter. That's probably one reason it has spawned so much critical analysis. After all, it is easier and somehow more appealing to have such a limited, confined "set" to analyse on a micro level. It's like a chess board. Sure, it's murder but on some level it is also a "game." Or a painting with a frame around it one can ponder at leisure.

Whereas Peeping Tom ranges around London, a real place. That's another reason it probably put people off. It seeped into their own real lives.

Despite his good looks and talent, which could have taken him very far in show biz, Bohm gave up acting to start a noble philanthropic enterprise that still exists today. Among other things (building schools and clean water fountains in Ethiopia) it campaigned against female genital mutilation long before the most of the West knew of such a thing.

What with Bohm having played a Jack the Ripper type killer, one can make of that what one will...

Tina Trent John Shuba • Mar 16, 2020 at 09:02

Love 'I Know Where I'm Going.' We watch it every year or so. Those dogs, that wind ... love as raw ambition.

The Red Shoes was also pretty shocking, a lot more shocking than a contemporary movie like Black Swan, which would only be shocking if one were shocked by anorexia and mean girls.

At my college, we had a P&P-heavy film series run singlehandedly by this guy who went on to be the first graduate of the Burt Reynolds Institute for Film and Theater and then to a fine post-production career doing Grizzly Man, America's Favorite Animal Videos, the Hello Kitty documentary, and Hitler colorizations, that being the market. So I was a teen when I first saw Peeping Tom, and what struck me was how unbelievably classy it was for a grindhouse movie.

That may be a good measure of how far we've fallen as a society.

John Shuba Tina Trent • Mar 16, 2020 at 23:08

Thanks for the shout-out to "I Know Where I'm Going." A wonderful film. Has there ever been a better pair of intelligent, strong and appealing romantic leads as Roger Livsay and Wendy Hiller? The dialogue crackles and the supporting cast (headed by the delicious Pamela Brown) is letter perfect. There are so many elements at work in the film and they all mesh perfectly. But that was the hallmark of Powell and Pressburger. They were remarkable storytellers with a strong visual sense and superb narrative drive. Glad you were introduced to them at an early age.

Tina Trent John Shuba • Mar 18, 2020 at 11:29

Pamela Brown is wonderful, but the Corryvreckan Whirlpool, of course, steals the show. What a strange film.

Josh Passell • Mar 15, 2020 at 06:15

I read about that Japanese stalker who was able to pinpoint his prey from the reflections in her eyes from her Instagram selfies. I filed it away for a future plot device. Can you do me a favor and not mention it again? Gracias.
The central tenet of my fiction is that, properly explained, anything is possible. Thanks to everything from chaos theory (as in Jurassic Park) to human idiocy, gullibility, and compulsiveness (too many examples to cite), anything is possible. And it's but a short step from corneal reflections to forensic orthography--capturing retinal images of murderers in the eyes of their victims. (Not possible. Yet. I think.)

Kathy Shaidle Josh Passell • Mar 15, 2020 at 10:21

Optography was all the rage in the 19th century, esp. during the Jack the Ripper murders. One movie that uses that trope is Argento's "Four Flies on Grey Velvet." I'm surprised there aren't more of them.

J B McL Josh Passell • Mar 15, 2020 at 14:03

I remember reading of the "forensic orthography" in Dixon's "The Clansman."

Lowell Walker Josh Passell • Mar 15, 2020 at 22:11

I'm always looking for interesting literature. What have you written, if I may be so crass? Serious question.

Josh Passell Lowell Walker • Mar 16, 2020 at 05:11

Thank you for asking, Lowell, but nothing yet published. My quest to become a better writer led me to a long-postponed attempt at detective fiction. I have a character I understand and a couple of plot lines fairly well established (one I had to tear up and start over again when actual events overtook my imagined ones). Private dicks operate in the murky world between criminals (or those thought to be criminals) and the good guys (or those thought to be...). I'm not interested in mysteries, per se; but in the currents of human emotions and behavior in the presence of mysteries. I just re-re-re-(...)watched Chinatown, a terrific example (if you overlook the criminal behavior of the director). As my manuscripts get closer to the marketplace, believe me, Club members will be the first to know!

Marc Swerdloff • Mar 15, 2020 at 05:59

The film has the look and feel of Hitchcock's," Frenzy." I watched it before bed and found it filled my slumber with serious bad content dreams. As I age, I find myself trying to limit my viewing to good topics because of all the evil I have seen in the news. I have to decide this new morning whether to resume my nightmarish journey. The film has a strange magnetism like the pull of the abyss I felt crossing a bridge over a deep dark gorge in Ithaca. I swear I heard demons beckoning to me to jump. I resisted that urge and hastened to the other side. There was a term we had in college for those who took the plunge: Gorging out. After four years matriculating there were enclosures on every small bridge on campus, but the main bridge had only a thick metal guard rail.

Kathy Shaidle Marc Swerdloff • Mar 15, 2020 at 11:47

Thanks for pointing that out, Marc. You are so right about "Frenzy" -- I was too busy thinking backwards about Psycho and Rear Window to look forwards, to Frenzy. (Which I never liked: It could have been so much better.)

Your experience in Ithaca isn't unheard of: One often hears of locations (bridges particularly) that have this impact on people. There is one bridge that, I've read, seems to compel _dogs_ to jump to their deaths. The demonic is very real.

As someone whose strongest sense is sight, Peeping Tom proved very compelling to me. Mark's introversion, which I also share, was so well captured. Like a lot of artworks influenced by then-universally-accepted Freudianism, some of it seems goofy in our more Jungian age. Interestingly, this was the movie Powell made when, to his disappointment, he was unable to make a planned film about Freud's life.

"No, of course not," was the reply. "Well, not until we'd seen 'Tinker.' After that, there was no stopping us."

Kathy Shaidle Owen Morgan • Mar 14, 2020 at 20:43

Indeed. I think many professions would report similar phenomena! It's fascinating, isn't it?

Lowell Walker Kathy Shaidle • Mar 15, 2020 at 22:07

The one that comes to my mind was police putting a hand on a person's head as they put them in the back of a police car. Almost all detective/police shows now do that. Don't know if real life police do it, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Kathy Shaidle • Mar 14, 2020 at 19:44

I meant to note that Mark's sadistic father, who warps him for life by recording his son's tortures on film, is played by... director Michael Powell.

Maggie Menzies • Mar 14, 2020 at 19:08

Great article Kathy. Wonderful to see Maxine Audley again - she was always dead good! (as well as beautiful)We will watch this tonight while we are holed up doing our bit fighting the Wuhan virus.p.s. Keep well.

Kathy Shaidle Maggie Menzies • Mar 14, 2020 at 20:37

Thanks Maggie. This isn't for everyone, although (I hate to use this cliche...) compared to a lot of the stuff Hollywood puts out today, the violence is extremely mild. Although maybe that "mildest" is a negative not a positive, in terms of glossing over how, well, _violent_ violence really is?

Sorry: I turn questions like that over in my head a lot!

The performances are good, and you can really see that Powell was trying to articulate unease about his own profession, and the role it plays in society. Whether or not he succeeded is for the viewer to decide.